I recall at one point this newspaper suggesting the title "supremo" instead of czar. I find it equally silly but it does have one distinct advantage. It's important to remember that much of this "problem" lies with the media. They, and not the White House, refer to these appointed positions as czars. There is a substantial segment of the American population that hears "Obama" and "czar" in the same sentence and imagines the president and his staff sitting in the Oval Office wearing furry hats, snapping vodka, and plotting the next rise of the proletariat. And yes, they probably do think the czars plotted the October Revolution, although they wouldn't know to call it that.

To be perfectly honest, despite my username, if I hadn't just finished reading a couple of books on Byzantium a week ago I wouldn't have remembered anything more than the derivation of Tsar from Caesar myself. Though now that I've written a rather long post on it I'll probably manage to remember that particular obscure fact about Roman administration for quite some time.

Well, Tzimisces... *especially* as your username is that of (Armenian-descent) Byzantine emperor Ioannes, you surely must know better than I ;-) All I know (or at least ~think~ I recall from my now ancient childhood) is that "Tsar", just like "Kaiser", is a linguistic cognate/derivative of "Caesar".

All the same, I'm just as tired of car-tsars, health-tsars, and all such. In fact, the last (upper-case) Tsar my family venerated was Alexei II, the brave reformer who was murdered, then succeeded by his reactionary son. That's all the tsars I've got on my Good List.

VK1961,
Just to be nitpicky (and just a little silly), if we're deriving Tsar from the Roman Caesar (which is only really accurate if you'll accept Byzantium as the later Roman Empire, the Russian Tsars were Roman only through Greek descent after all, and that on the distaff side) it's rather more accurate since by the time of Constantine (I can't remember if it was instituted by Constantine or by a predecessor, possibly Diocletian) it had become accepted practice for the Emperor to name a "Caesar" to serve as his representative in administering the Empire (and to provide at least a small hope of having an emperor die without a civil war occurring, this of course was a generally futile hope). It was considered one step below but did have absolute control over the regions the Emperor tasked the Caesar with administering. This is actually closer to how we use Tsar than the actual Russian imperial Tsar was, even if still wildly inexact.

The fact that Tsar seems to be derived from Imperial Russia rather than directly from the later Roman usage while describing a radically different way of administering things does of course render the point moot.

For once, no politics, some linguistics: to my knowledge, "tsar" is a Slavonic contraction of "Caesar"-- the sort of fellow who does not *have* a boss. Thus the popularization of the term is ever so slightly ridiculous. The President has appointed various functionaries, which is entirely his prerogative to do. Now, whether that undermines democracy... that I leave to others.

I harbor my own, grave doubts regarding the effectiveness of (some of) those people. But mine are not, of course, "anti-tsarist" sentiments.

Just because someone eles did it doesn't mean it's alright for you to do it.

A "czar" is essentially a workaround of the legal process. So what if the Senate is taking it's sweet time. That's the Senate's function. Besides, there are so many people out there who are qualified that it's a measure of the President if he can get consent from the Senate or not.

The blogger asked, "What's the President to do here?" Well he can follow the law and wait for approval from the Senate. It's not like he doesn't have someone who's been vetted already: each nominee has a predecessor who can stay on until the new guy/gal is confirmed. It's also a measure of the Presdient if he can work with the previous administration's personnel.

After implement the most irresponsible spending program in US History, taking over the banking and automotive industries, proposing a gaggle of tax hikes, and trying to takeover health care, one should regard Friedman as deranged.

Friedman has an excellent piece about the state of our one-party democracy:

“Globalization has neutered the Republican Party, leaving it to represent not the have-nots of the recession but the have-nots of globalized America, the people who have been left behind either in reality or in their fears,” said Edward Goldberg, a global trade consultant who teaches at Baruch College. “The need to compete in a globalized world has forced the meritocracy, the multinational corporate manager, the eastern financier and the technology entrepreneur to reconsider what the Republican Party has to offer. In principle, they have left the party, leaving behind not a pragmatic coalition but a group of ideological naysayers.”

I have listened to Cass Susstein lecture for 10+ years (he was a regular on public broadcasting in Chicago), and find him illuminating, but purely theoretical, and prone to making extreme statements to get a reaction rather than to seriously consider an issue.

It may be a good question to put to him...can he really be serious on of the careless stuff he has said on radio? How about when he puts his meanderings in print? When does a provocative point become a policy issue...and do we really want these sorts of people, however interesting, to have executive authority?

I want to hear what former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton has to say about the whole, "Appointing people without getting Senate approval process." I'm guessing he's against...as of January 20th this year. :-)

"...Mr Cantor is right in noting that Mr Obama has appointed a historic number of new officials unaccountable to the Congress,..."

I'd like to see the figures that support this statement (verifiable figures that demonstrate that Obama has appointed more such types than George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, etc.). Why aren't they in the blogpost?

I'm inspired by the way the GOP has tackled the most pressing issues facing our country and the world. The wisdom, judgement and statesmanship of Republicans, especially in the Senate, is amazing in its complete absence.